"If we are not practicing good science, we probably aren’t practicing good democracy. And vice versa"

(Dennis Overbye, New York Times January 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink).

Discuss.

Ok.
If not A, then probably not B. (An inverse of some assumed statement)
If not B, then probably not A. (A contrapositive of some assumed statement)


Overbye gives the example of China's persecution of a free-thinking scientist as evidence of "if not good science then probably not good democracy." Yes, whenever the state (or the Church) intrudes to place limits of free scientific inquiry, we probably don't have a good democracy. And whenever democracy is poor and the state erodes all those civil liberties we hold dear, it's likely that free investigation in science is limited, as well.

But maybe it also is worthwhile to look at the assumed statement and its converse (leaving out the probabilistic element):

If A then B: If good science then good democracy.
If B then A: If good democracy then good science.

Do these hold true?

Good science is about a good process of scientific inquiry, and not necessarily about getting the right answer. Overbye also seems to be claiming that the habits of mind (to borrow a phrase from my son's teachers) of scientific inquiry -- skepticism, empiricism, etc. -- lead to the same kind of self-critical analytical stance that is necessary for good democratic governance.

In my view, this may be necessary, but it's not sufficient. The key element needed for good democratic governance not included here is empathy. For a democracy to function well, citizens must empathize with others. The strong must be able to put themselves in the metaphorical shoes of the weak, and vice versa. Without empathy, self-interested individuals will end up creating what de Tocqueville referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." And science without empathy can lead to Dr. Mengele.

And then the converse: Do we see good science in good democracies? Sweden and Denmark are good democracies, and they probably have some good science, but they are not known for their leading edge science. This may be a contributory, but not necessary or sufficient condition. Having a strong democracy might help science, but it's not enough.

But I like good democracy, and I like good science. Whether or not one leads to the other, I want both.

It's time to say something about Gaza

The situation in Israel and Palestine is just so sad that I don't really want to blog about it, but there is so much over-simplification going on that I really think it's time to talk about the complexities. So here goes.

1. Countries that are attacked have a right to defend themselves by attacking back. Hamas lobs rockets into Israel. Israel has a right to defend itself by attacking back.

2. Attacking back should be done in a commensurate way -- not with, for example, force that leads to total annihilation. Whether Israel is attacking back with measured force as opposed to excessive force is unclear.

3. Fighting a just war was a much easier concept when armies lined up opposite each other on battlefields, wore uniforms, and generally separated the civilians from the combatants.

4. Dropping leaflets to warn civilians to get out of harm's way could be a just action, but if the civilians have no where to go, then the humanitarian-inspired effort gets turned on its head and becomes malign.

5. Fighting the terrorist organization that has taken control of Gaza is really hard, but doing so is necessary (but certainly not sufficient) for Israeli national security, at least for the short term.

6. Unfortunately, though, destroying supply tunnels that bring arms into Gaza and weakening the Hamas leadership is likely to have only temporary positive effects for Israel. In the short run, fewer missiles will hit Sderot and Ashkelon. In the long run, the effect my be negative as the military action wins more hearts and minds for Hamas -- not only among the Palestinians, but also in the world at large.

7. Using the civilian population as human shields by intentionally placing military posts, rocket launchers, and other materiel in neighborhoods and in places where there are likely to be a lot of civilians ought to be considered a war crime.

8. "Winning" a war does not necessarily mean that peace has come.

Someone really ought to write "Just War Theory for Guerilla Warfare and Terrorism." Not me, though.